In Defence of Marriage

At the root of the pretended justification, offered by government for its proposed legalization of so-called same-sex 'marriage', is a misapplication of the concept of equality.

In its perverse desire to equalize not only opportunity but also outcome, as between men and women, as well as between heterosexual and homosexual members of each sex, government is willing to destroy the very thing, namely, the institution of marriage, that it wishes to make accessible to those who are ineligible for it.

Monogamous marriage is a venerable social institution. It is central to the character of our Christian culture and to the stability of society. It fulfills the individual through family life and provides the best milieu for the raising of children. If it is to be so desecrated that it is no longer an exclusive union between one man and one woman, then what is really left of it but the mere name, marriage? It is by means of such a violation that a concept takes leave of itself.

The civil partnership, which homosexuals of either sex are now able to enter into with one another, gives them the same legal rights, vis a vis each other, as apply to the partners in a marriage. Yet strangely, civil partnership, now it is legally recognized, seems to have lost what little appeal it ever had for homosexuals. The numbers entering such an arrangement every year are very small indeed.

The next pot of gold at the end of the rainbow appears to be marriage itself. Just the name. That and the probability of outraging the religious and moral sensibilities of clergy and churchgoers by demanding the right to a ritual in church. None of this futile attempt to usurp the moral order, however, can conceivably compensate for what is lacking, namely normal feelings. It is merely displacement activity designed to attract attention and to shock.

Ultimately, the logic of government's perverse 'equality' drive in the field of social affairs should lead it to ban marriage between members of the opposite sex, except for mixed race marriages, in the name of attaining "an acceptable level of diversity within society". But one step at a time. Marriage has already been undermined by having been made economically disadvantageous. In order further to atomize society, marriage, as traditionally understood, must now be brought into contempt and publicly degraded as an institution.

It is not necessary to be a Roman Catholic, a churchgoer, or even a Christian, in order to find government's proposed wrecking of marriage morally repugnant and to oppose it. God can find work for atheists, agnostics and humanists, too. All that is required, in order to line up on the side of the angels in this battle, is an understanding of the abiding value to ourselves and our society of our tradition, heritage and culture, as well as a healthy distrust of politicians who seek to break what they cannot control.

Church leaders have both the right and the duty to speak out on matters which go to the heart of the Christian way of life. Happily, in this instance, they have given the right lead. This is not to say that they are always right. Far from it. When they are right they have our support, where they are wrong they have our criticism.

It would be foolish indeed of nationalists not to make common cause with those who agree with us on this issue, out of a bigoted anticlericalism or militant secularism. Though the churches err in their dealings with us, as nationalists, we should show them the error of their ways in that truly Christian spirit of tolerance in which they themselves are so signally deficient.